Lost your password? Questions? Email admin @ theologyweb.com
Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
I did do what you asked, and found two instances that match the "hard definition."
[cite=fossilmuseum.net]Transitional fossils are the fossilized remains of transitional forms of life that tangibly and demonstrably encode an evolutionary transition.
Actually what you call 'hard and soft' definitions are not in reality distinctly different. All transitional forms of species, subspecies and varieties of life forms evolution represent evidence of a natural dynamic process. The difference is not specific and clear. Evolution takes place as continuous process involving related life forms involve large population usually in the millions over time and not a direct step by step of direct transitional species of forms. Some fossil remains based anatomical and isolation considerations are considered transitional in form only, because of isolated from related species and subspecies.
Genetic research in recent history has confirmed this natural process over time.
Last edited by shunyadragon; 01-26-2021, 07:56 PM.
Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
I did do what you asked, and found two instances that match the "hard definition."
And this is the soft definition.
Blessings,
Lee
No you didn't.
There is no such thing as a hard and soft definition. That is a deliberate misrepresentation plain and simple.
You are merely looking for individual sentences that you think you can use by ripping them out of context.
That isn't just dishonest but deliberately dishonest.
Behe and Evolution News has taught you well and you appear to be too far gone to be able to distinguish right from wrong
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Though I may still invoke common design instead of common descent!
Actually, this has me curious: under what circumstances would you not claim common design?
I ask, because this instance has one of the largest collections of fossils bearing intermediate features of any. And now we have genomic data confirming the fossil evidence. If you're not going to accept common descent there, i'm kind of at a loss to understand where you would.
"Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Actually, this has me curious: under what circumstances would you not claim common design?
I ask, because this instance has one of the largest collections of fossils bearing intermediate features of any. And now we have genomic data confirming the fossil evidence. If you're not going to accept common descent there, i'm kind of at a loss to understand where you would.
Probably the only one with a more complete and continuous documented fossil record would be the one from basal amniotes to basal mammals. It is so robust that in fact there remains some rather heated debates over whether to describe some creatures as a "mammal-like-reptile" or as "reptile-like mammal"[1]. The record really is that complete in that an almost continuous series of well-preserved fossils exists. Over a dozen years ago there were over 250 different species in that lineage found in recent years that helped fill out the record for this transition and many more have been found since then.
1. pardon the outdated terminology since the synapsids that evolved into mammals weren't reptiles and weren't the same synapsids that evolved into reptiles. Its just that folks don't generally recognize terms like synapsids, therapsids and the like.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Actually, this has me curious: under what circumstances would you not claim common design?
About at the level of "family":
Blessings,
Lee
"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
This is rich since Behe himself, in his The Edge of Evolution actually contends that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor. In fact he argues for common descent for all life on earth saying that the evidence for it obvious. He even argued for universal common descent back in Darwin's Black Box.
From the former
For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there's no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives."
and from the latter
"For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it."
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
So, basically, there's no possible amount of evidence that could convince you otherwise because "Behe said so"?
No, I think Behe's arguments are solid, here is a sample:
Originally posted by rogue06
This is rich since Behe himself, in his The Edge of Evolution actually contends that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor. In fact he argues for common descent for all life on earth saying that the evidence for it obvious. He even argued for universal common descent back in Darwin's Black Box.
Behe holds that common descent and intelligent design are compatible, though. See for example, the following discussion from Ann Gauger:
"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Behe holds that common descent and intelligent design are compatible, though. See for example, the following discussion from Ann Gauger:
Blessings,
Lee
Essentially this could be boiled down to saying that evolution is God's Intelligent Design.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
No, I think Behe's arguments are solid, here is a sample:
Please see the other thread, where i made it clear that one aspect of Behe's argument is garbage. Let's do another, shall we?
This is his descendant of specified complexity - too many components interacting in specific ways to evolve. Except we've known examples of this sort of thing evolving, dating back to before Behe even started writing about this.
Lee, meet the proteasome. I'll embed an image of its structure so we can all appreciate its complexity. Note that the red and blue regions, which look to be single components, are actually collections of multiple proteins. So, so many interactions, can't possibly have evolved according to Behe. 26S_proteasome_structure.jpg
Except we know it has. The red regions are stacks of four sets of six proteins - put differently, there are four rings of six proteins stacked on top of each other. In yeast, each of the six proteins of each stack is a distinct gene, so well beyond Behe's limit of complexity. Except all six are descendants of a single protein through duplication of the ancestral gene followed by mutations that cause specialization. If we go back to the ancestors of eukaryotes (the archaea), they still have only a single gene that produces all six members of each ring. So, each half of the red structure was built based on a grand total of two protein interactions: one in between members of the ring, and one between neighboring rings.
It's the same thing with the blue structure. It's a ring, and all members of the ring are descendants of a single ancestral protein. It only took one protein-protein interaction to make the ring, then another to get it to link to the red structure, and then a series of duplication/diversification events to create lots of individual, specialized genes instead of a single, generalist version.
What about all that stuff on top? That's all built out of individual protein-protein interactions. Once the scaffolding was in place, interactions among them could be selected for, and have in a couple of places.
Behe's whole argument is based on the presumption that you can't build up these complicated networks of protein interactions one individual, selected step at a time. The proteasome shows that this entire argument is laughably false, since there's an obvious and well documented path to its stepwise assembly. And we have known about this for years, during which time Behe should know that his argument is false.
Yet he keeps making it.
Behe is lying to you. He may also be lying to himself so that he can sleep at night, but he's definitely lying to you.
"Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
It's the same thing with the blue structure. It's a ring, and all members of the ring are descendants of a single ancestral protein. It only took one protein-protein interaction to make the ring, then another to get it to link to the red structure, and then a series of duplication/diversification events to create lots of individual, specialized genes instead of a single, generalist version.
What about all that stuff on top? That's all built out of individual protein-protein interactions. Once the scaffolding was in place, interactions among them could be selected for, and have in a couple of places.
And was it working as a proteasome through all this time? And were all the mutations selectable? I would guess the duplications, for instance, were not selectable.
Behe's whole argument is based on the presumption that you can't build up these complicated networks of protein interactions one individual, selected step at a time.
Behe actually acknowledges that with selectable mutations, evolution can work. His argument is about neutral or deleterious mutations.
"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
And was it working as a proteasome through all this time? And were all the mutations selectable? I would guess the duplications, for instance, were not selectable.
Yes, it was a proteasome in archaea, and it remains one today. And we know duplications take place in every single generation of humans, so it doesn't matter whether they're selectable.
"Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Yes, it was a proteasome in archaea, and it remains one today. And we know duplications take place in every single generation of humans, so it doesn't matter whether they're selectable.
Just saying howdy with no attempt whatsoever to derail the thread in any way, shape or form.
The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment